± From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Øyvind
± Stenhaug
± Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 3:10 AM
±
± On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 09:16:08 +0200, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com> wrote:
±
± > Hot about this:
± >
± > position: inline | block | absolute | fixed | table-cell | table-row
± > | list-item | ...
± > layout: text | list | table | table-row | flexbox | grid | replaced*
± > | region
± >
± > (*) replaced should probably not be a generic replace, it should be
± > every specific kind - image | button | iframe | mathml | ...
± >
± > (you may have noticed that I didn't put "position:relative" in the list.
± > It doesn't belong there. Unfortunately it is a "position"
± > historically, will have to be included, but really it should have been
± > a separate
± > property)
±
± But how do you differentiate between a relpos inline and a relpos block?
This is not really a proposal, this is an idea that is brought up with the purpose of looking at property naming in perspective. The concepts referred to by 'display-outside' and 'display-inside' are very different, they may or may not have related names, and they also may overlap with existing properties.
As for "position:relative", in this hypothetical situation (of defining display and positioning properties as if they didn't exist yet) I would keep it separate, as it isn't really specifying a position, it is an offset from a position that is determined before it applies.
Perhaps something like this would work better for relative positioning:
position-offset: <length> <length>?
(the two values are offsets for 'start' and 'before'; somewhat similar to http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-gcpm/#the-float-offset-property)
Alex